7 ms·

Unfortunately, the "solution" you're referring to violates the Good Friday Agreement, so in fact Boris Johnson does not have a definite idea about how to solve

Unfortunately, the "solution" you're referring to violates the Good Friday Agreement, so in fact Boris Johnson does not have a definite idea about how to solve anything whatsoever.

tomatocracy 7y ago
Its fair to say that whether it is in line with or 'breaks' the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is disputed - the UK courts recently ruled that imposing a border on a no deal exit would not breach it, and what the UK is proposing is less than that. The Republic of Ireland (or at least their political leadership) seem to interpret the agreement differently, and insist that the Good Friday Agreement means that all laws relating to trade or commerce must be exactly the same in both NI and the RoI (they cite some provisions on the 'all island economy' in support of this). Equally the unionists believe that the May Withdrawal Agreement breaches the GFA for different reasons - because the GFA acknowledges UK sovereignty over NI and says that this shouldn't be changed without a border poll (which the unionists would likely win still).
- PaulAJ 7y ago
  It is technically true to say the the GFA does not prohibit border controls. However the GFA was negotiated with joint EU membership as part of the existing political background, so it was taken for granted. In practice anything which stops people crossing the border without let or hindrance will be treated by the Republicans as an abrogation of the intent of the GFA.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Border controls themselves aren't really the major item in dispute (and there are already forms of controls for contraband, alcohol/fuel duty, VAT, and movement of people which occur in a dedramatised way) - its alignment of law and regulation which is disputed much more heavily. This isn't widely understood, I think.
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      They're not really in dispute right now, but they will be a massive, massive flashpoint following Brexit. The nationalists will treat it as a symbol, and there will likley be violence associated with any border checks. If we can keep these away from the border, it would be better, but not sure how you prevent smuggling in that kind of environment.
      - tomatocracy 7y ago
        A soft border with an implicit tolerance of smuggling at a certain level (which in reality is what we have today vs the rest of the world - witness the amount of fake-certified and dangerous goods that come in from eg China with no real enforcement), together with cooperation on enforcement for the bigger offenders (eg the UK assisting in stopping goods before they reach the border if they are destined for RoI and known not to comply with EU standards) would seem to be the pragmatic solution. I don’t think the two sides are really all that far apart on this point. As I mentioned, the much bigger issue is regulatory alignment more generally for reasons which are not related to border infrastructure (North-South cooperation and the all island economy), where there is a much bigger gap between the sides.
hogFeast 7y ago
Yep, that is a common misunderstanding. The solution is not the deal, the solution is the strategy. The reason we are in this situation is because the UK essentially agreed to everything the EU wanted, and MPs voted it down. That is democracy. Johnson's approach is to say: we need to leave. The EU has red lines, that is fine, we will try to come to whatever agreement is possible but if no agreement is found then we will just get on with it. Your argument is that Brexit cannot happen because it is impossible. That is fine. But the UK voted for Brexit, Parliament voted for Brexit, and Brexit parties won a general election (and there is no Remain majority). So the solution is equally not to ignore voters.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  Basically there is a general agreement that pigs should fly, but nobody seem to agree on the mechanics (the option of shooting them from a cannon apparently is not liked by anybody).
- simias 7y ago
  I think it's pretty clear that in many western democracies it's getting increasingly easy to form majorities "against" stuff while it's getting harder to form majorities "for stuff". There's a majority in the UK that wants to live the EU, but there's no majority agreeing on where to go from there. That's why this referendum was mindbogglingly stupid to begin with, you can't give the people a choice if you're not prepared to handle both outcomes. What's next, a referendum for "social security for all and basic income and no taxes, also free candy. Yes or no?" Of course the people is sovereign, but democracy can't trump reality. How can you live the UK without hard border with Ireland? This wasn't even a topic at the time of the referendum as I recall. David Cameron made one of the biggest political errors in modern history here.
  - jazzyk 7y ago
    >David Cameron made one of the biggest political errors in modern history here. By asking people to have a voice instead of deciding for them?? Direct democracy can work very well - just look at Switzerland, which is the envy of the world when it comes to governance. It may/may not be scalable, but important decisions like EU membership should be decided by the people, not the elite.

Unfortunately, the "solution" you're referring to violates the Good Friday Agreement, so in fact Boris Johnson does not have a definite idea about how to solve anything whatsoever.

tomatocracy 7y ago

Its fair to say that whether it is in line with or 'breaks' the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is disputed - the UK courts recently ruled that imposing a border on a no deal exit would not breach it, and what the UK is proposing is less than that. The Republic of Ireland (or at least their political leadership) seem to interpret the agreement differently, and insist that the Good Friday Agreement means that all laws relating to trade or commerce must be exactly the same in both NI and the RoI (they cite some provisions on the 'all island economy' in support of this). Equally the unionists believe that the May Withdrawal Agreement breaches the GFA for different reasons - because the GFA acknowledges UK sovereignty over NI and says that this shouldn't be changed without a border poll (which the unionists would likely win still).

PaulAJ 7y ago
It is technically true to say the the GFA does not prohibit border controls. However the GFA was negotiated with joint EU membership as part of the existing political background, so it was taken for granted. In practice anything which stops people crossing the border without let or hindrance will be treated by the Republicans as an abrogation of the intent of the GFA.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Border controls themselves aren't really the major item in dispute (and there are already forms of controls for contraband, alcohol/fuel duty, VAT, and movement of people which occur in a dedramatised way) - its alignment of law and regulation which is disputed much more heavily. This isn't widely understood, I think.
  - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
    They're not really in dispute right now, but they will be a massive, massive flashpoint following Brexit. The nationalists will treat it as a symbol, and there will likley be violence associated with any border checks. If we can keep these away from the border, it would be better, but not sure how you prevent smuggling in that kind of environment.
    - tomatocracy 7y ago
      A soft border with an implicit tolerance of smuggling at a certain level (which in reality is what we have today vs the rest of the world - witness the amount of fake-certified and dangerous goods that come in from eg China with no real enforcement), together with cooperation on enforcement for the bigger offenders (eg the UK assisting in stopping goods before they reach the border if they are destined for RoI and known not to comply with EU standards) would seem to be the pragmatic solution. I don’t think the two sides are really all that far apart on this point. As I mentioned, the much bigger issue is regulatory alignment more generally for reasons which are not related to border infrastructure (North-South cooperation and the all island economy), where there is a much bigger gap between the sides.

hogFeast 7y ago

Yep, that is a common misunderstanding. The solution is not the deal, the solution is the strategy. The reason we are in this situation is because the UK essentially agreed to everything the EU wanted, and MPs voted it down. That is democracy. Johnson's approach is to say: we need to leave. The EU has red lines, that is fine, we will try to come to whatever agreement is possible but if no agreement is found then we will just get on with it. Your argument is that Brexit cannot happen because it is impossible. That is fine. But the UK voted for Brexit, Parliament voted for Brexit, and Brexit parties won a general election (and there is no Remain majority). So the solution is equally not to ignore voters.

gpderetta 7y ago
Basically there is a general agreement that pigs should fly, but nobody seem to agree on the mechanics (the option of shooting them from a cannon apparently is not liked by anybody).
simias 7y ago
I think it's pretty clear that in many western democracies it's getting increasingly easy to form majorities "against" stuff while it's getting harder to form majorities "for stuff". There's a majority in the UK that wants to live the EU, but there's no majority agreeing on where to go from there. That's why this referendum was mindbogglingly stupid to begin with, you can't give the people a choice if you're not prepared to handle both outcomes. What's next, a referendum for "social security for all and basic income and no taxes, also free candy. Yes or no?" Of course the people is sovereign, but democracy can't trump reality. How can you live the UK without hard border with Ireland? This wasn't even a topic at the time of the referendum as I recall. David Cameron made one of the biggest political errors in modern history here.
- jazzyk 7y ago
  >David Cameron made one of the biggest political errors in modern history here. By asking people to have a voice instead of deciding for them?? Direct democracy can work very well - just look at Switzerland, which is the envy of the world when it comes to governance. It may/may not be scalable, but important decisions like EU membership should be decided by the people, not the elite.